Slashdot Mirror
Stranger In a Strange Land
FooBard writes: "Review of Robert A. Heinlein's Stranger In a Strange Land, unabridged version.
I have read a lot, although not all, of Heinlein's work. Stranger is clearly his crown jewel, and for reasons that transcend science fiction. All great art transcends its genre, and this book is no exception. The story is not merely "robots and rocketships", but uses science fiction for a truly creative look at the human condition: religion, love, sex, money, power, government, relationships... what more could you want?
Footnote: This book is also the origin of the term "grok" (loosely meaning: to have a very deep understanding of), which is used so frequently in computer circles.
The ScenarioThe story is based on Valentine Michael Smith (no relation), usually called Mike, or the Man From Mars. Mike is the son of two crewmembers of the first manned flight to Mars, and was born on Mars after that flight crash-landed. His parents died shortly after his birth, and he was raised by Martians.
"Martians?" you might say. "How quaint." Keep in mind that this was written a while ago (when Martians were still trendy), and suspend your disbelief. Just as in all good "classic" sci-fi, Heinlein's methods and situation aren't as important as his goals and ideas. Sci-fi isn't about the "sci" or the "fi", but about what it means to be human.
Mike struggles in adapting to life on Earth, first physically, then mentally. He grapples with his integration into the human race in his own unique way. His journey is sort of a coming of age, yet he really is of age in another society -- a society whose values are often polar opposites to those value that define our humanness. Throughout Mike's process, Heinlein reflects on what it means to be human, which is one of the best and richest themes used in literature.
In a historical context, the book itself also has an interesting history. Back when it was originally published, Heinlein was forced to cut quite a bit of the book, especially the racier parts. This version reflects the manuscript that Heinlein originally wanted. I have previously read the abridged version, although I must admit that I don't remember all the finer points. This version does seem to have a bit more sex and more material that makes fun of the Fosterite church, etc., so it packs more of a punch than I remember from the abridged version.
What's GoodHeinlein makes very interesting choices in his portrayal of Martian society, and specifically contrasts them to what is most human. Religion, love, sex, money, etc. are all missing in Martian society, and this contrast allows for wonderful parody and analysis. We watch Mike stumble through learning such basics as male vs. female, love, communication, why we have religion, how we use humor, death and how we fear it, money, privacy... Each time, Mike's character forces us to question the "why" behind those ideas in society that we take for granted. Religion (in our form) doesn't seem natural to him. He doesn't laugh. He doesn't understand the wonder of sex, nor why we have property. Heinlein deconstructs those ideas through his plot and the character of Mike, and creates a consistent philosophical view of the world. (Whether you agree with Heinlein's ideas and philosophies is a different matter. I happen to agree with most.)
To watch a character struggle through this discovery for an entire book would be painful; no one wants to see that much struggle without a bit of redemption. So Heinlein makes Mike into a very powerful figure, showing the strengths of Martian society: no money, complete power of mind over body (Mike grows muscles by "thinking them", and has strong telepathic and telekenetic abilities), and he has an unquestioning belief and tangible proof of the afterlife. His human friends learn as much from him as he does from them, and, by the end of the book, Mike seeks to remake Earth society with his new viewpoint.
Religion plays a central role in this book. Organized religion is roasted (especially through the device of the Fosterite church), while religion itself is held as uniquely human -- an answer to our mortality and a reflection of our need to understand our world. Towards the end of the book, Mike creates his own religion (in a sense) and actually follows through, in true literary fashion, to his logical ending: Mike is a clear Christ allegory. Mike is the human- who- is- more- than- and- not- quite- human, and comes to Earth to redeem our society, to challenge how we see ourselves in the universe, and eventually to die for our redemption.
Other characters also are mouthpieces for Heinlein. Jubal Harshaw (strikingly and too blatantly similar to Lazarus Long, from "Time Enough for Love") is the older, yet very open-minded mentor to Mike. Jill helps him explore the male/female relationships, and Ben Caxton works to act as a foil to both Jubal and Mike, allowing Heinlein to use those characters to clarify his points. Several other characters interplay with the main character to strengthen Heinlein's philosophical arguments.
What's BadI have only a few issues with the book. The story ends in a typically Heinleinian fashion, with all the characters in some kind of group marriage, where free love amongst highly intellectual people conquers all. Nuh-uh. I'm not buying it again -- especially after rereading "Time Enough for Love" not too long ago. His exploration of such a life is just a bit too drawn-out and idyllic.
Also, in Stranger, Heinlein tries to examine almost all of what it means to be human. Few books, even the classics, attempt such a grandiose exploration of the human condition and all that it encompasses. It's a bit too large of an undertaking, even for the unabridged version. At the end of the book, you feel like you've explored a lot of territory, but you don't quite "grok" it all.
What's In it for me?Heinlein does a wonderful job in giving himself the situations in which to explore those themes, however, and he must be commended in his success in surpassing the "robots and rocketships" so prevalent among his peers. Heinlein is a master of taking sci-fi beyond the plots, and his character of Mike was his best medium for his talent. This book changed science fiction forever, and it's still among the best. Even if you have read this book before (as I had), this book forces an examination of what it means to be human, especially in a world where technology itself -- not the humanity behind it -- drives much of literature, not to mention the very fundamentals of our lives."
Another point of view, from Scrymarch: Thou art God - I mean Hi. If someone had said that phrase once more to me by the time I finished this book, I think I would have struck them. It is bandied about with a smug bantering style that characterizes the problems I have with the novel and I suspect the author himself.
It is the story of a human raised on Mars by Martians. He then comes to Earth and experiences American society, and the resultant culture-shock on the part of both the main character and the reader is the main point of book. Indeed, by the accounts of the cover it is supposed to upset every background assumption that underlies my existence. Why it fails, and the way it fails, I think is a peculiar result of the interaction between when it was written, the ?60s, and R.A. Heinlen.
The 21st or 22nd century, when the book is set, bears a remarkable resemblance to a certain decade in the 20th century. Some extra gizmos like flying cars are about; there is an obligatory world government; but Western society is essentially the same when it comes to things like the sexism that permeates every printed word on every page.
Sexism is in fact one of the themes of the book. Humanity is blessed with our division into opposite and complementary genders apparently, and we should get on with doin? what our sex does best. Sex is another major theme. It?s enjoyable, you see, and by allowing us to "grow closer" to one another all human tragedy and hunger will be able to be solved.
Martian culture, a meditative one which interacts with spirits as its main leaders, is not much of a shock. It is essentially a convenient mix of Eastern cultures and religions, with some interesting embellishments, such as cannibalism (the only idea which really gave me much of a start). The Martians are at least not humanoid in shape. It revolves around a concept of "grokking" which roughly translates as completely interacting or understanding something. After one has grokked, one can act, and waiting for the right moment to act is also fundamental. This approach to existence makes Martians unbelievably wise, of course, and so they have in turn gained tremendous psychic powers. One of these powers includes routinely making objects (usually clothes) disappear completely, which explains where all those Martian cities got to.
Anyway, the grand revelation Mars-boy receives drives him to found a cult (the rise of specious alien cults is one of the few prophetic aspects of the book). The cult hangs around and has sex with one another a lot, while telling each other they art God. Perhaps this was the appeal of the novel 40-ish years ago. It was a little too flippant for me.
Stranger in a Strange Land is a silly, dated book and the first I have ever seriously considered throwing against a wall.
Is that from the book?
-- www.RoachMcKrackin.com
This book is one of the worst pieces of rubbish it has ever been my misfortune to read. Heinlein is generally a terrible author (try, or rather don't, the fascist paen Starship Troopers or the right-wing gun-nut's wet dream The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress), but he surpasses himself in this caca. From the lame characterisation (the old guy who lives with 3 young girls who fulfil his every whim is a particularly nauseating piece of authorial fantasy) to the thin psychedelia-wannabe plot, this book fails on all points to entertain. This is neither a flame nor a troll, it is my honest opinion.
If you want real golden sci-fi, read Phillip K Dick or Zelazny or Gene Wolfe or Asimov or anyone but Heinlein!
nal 11
Stefan.
It takes a lot of brains to enjoy satire, humor and wit-
The truth shall make you fret. (Ankh-Morpork tImes motto)
Hmmmm....guess that makes me a stupid newbie!
Oh well...
---------------------
%46%55%43%4B !
...watch Mike stumble through learning such basics as male vs. female, love, communication, why we have religion, how we use humor, death and how we fear it, money, privacy... Each time, Mike's character forces us to question the "why" behind those ideas in society that we take for granted. Religion (in our form) doesn't seem natural to him. He doesn't laugh. He doesn't understand the wonder of sex, nor why we have property.
Sounds like Michael Valentine Smith could have been a great Open Source developer.The sex scenes are just laughably bad, as clumsily written with one eye on the censors and one eye on increasing his adolescent readership and the story, such as it is breaks down towards the end with endless pages extolling free love delaying the inevitable second rate martyrdom that our second rate profit of beatnik pseudo-mysticism so richly deserves.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
First of all, I should say that this is not a bad book. In fact, from an "interesting concept" point of view, I rate this book quite highly. It is very imaginative, and quite a good read.
However, those that look at this book as some sort of blueprint for life need to seriously seek psychological help. It is chock full of 60s style hippy philosophy that has mercifully died nowadays (at least for most sane people). Most of the social commentary is incredibly childish. One area in particular--and I think a lot of its appeal for men comes for this-- is its playing to the adolescent man's fantasy for "strong" women that are really subservient (sexually and otherwise) to the men. I hate to sound like a feminist, but it really is bad.
In short, read this novel, don't miss it. It has a lot of great science fiction ideas, and if you read it for that, you will be glad you did. But if you find yourself nodding in agreement with the social nonsense, then it may be time to see the shrink. :)
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Despite what people will tell you, this is a great book - it has a good storyline, and brings up (and even deals with) a number of interesting issues.
:-)
My main objection is Heinlein's seriously outdated sexual stereotypes. I'm male, btw, but it still bothers me when Heinlein makes one of his female characters spout out the line "Nine times out of ten, when a girl gets raped, it's partly her fault". There are scatterings of these kind of gems throughout the book.
Looking beyond that, though, it's a genuinely great book, and if you haven't read it yet (why the hell not?) try and do so
And finally. This isn't "News for Nerds". It might, perhaps, if you're feeling optimistic, be "stuff that matters". Hmm. Lack of news, methinks.
--Remove SPAM from my address to mail me
So anyone thats under thirty is automatically stupid and a newbie?
Righhht.
I agree though, this isn't news.
Josh Sisk
Sure, it's dated and it's not realistic for most people (various characters say so at the time), but that's an easy criticism and doesn't warrant posting it on Slashdot (why not take a more original approach--e.g., comparing Mike's Nest with the free-love society of Brave New World? It's not like either Heinlein's book or this particular critique is new.
But the book has lasted enough that people are still talking about it. Why? In part because of the ideas in the book; I wasn't around when it first came out so I don't know how readers of that time reacted. The reason I still read it is that, even though his characters are hopelessly idealistic characters and his ideas largely unworkable, he spins a damn good yarn. I'd rather have that than the social genius who can't write his way out of an introductory scene.
Face it, Stranger in a Strange Land is the new bible. The old story of a cult leader turned martyr was getting old, Heinlein took that and mixed it with the right blend of Sci-Fi to bring us the greatest book of the century. Read it, live it, worship it. Only then will you truly grok your existance.
"If you're not having fun right now, you're wasting your time."
The big problem I have with Heinlein is the narrow minded way he deals with gender roles and sexual orientation. The passage in Stranger that grates my nerves the most was the passage on page 303 of my Berkely Science fiction paper back edition where the narrator talks about the "poor in betweens" probably having a wrongness that Mike could sense. The homophobia is sickening. Heinlein explores the 20th century American psyche while failing to extract himself from mores similar to the ones he satirizes.
I much prefer the group marriage as explored by Dian Duane in her Door Into series. It is a much more interesting take on humanity.
--- If you don't want to know the answer, don't ask the question.
...to enjoy a book.
/. commenter had gone so far as to read others written by Heinlein. I haven't read Starship Troopers, but I suspect the fascist tone is not intended in praise but is a p**s take of the first order. In terms of "Stranger...", in order to hate your enemy you have to first understand him so well that your hate is almost born out of love.
I really enjoyed Stranger in a Strange Land, although the philosophy of the book does indeed reflect a sort of 60's true love ambiance that is wholly incredible in todays self serving and AIDs fearing world.
To say Heinlein is a terrible author on the strength of this book is almost incredible; the imagination and scope of this book is vast and in the main it carries it off with style and humour. There are indeed some books written by Heinlein which are awful, this is indeed a masterpiece in any science fiction library.
Whilst again not wishing to flame or troll, I was surprised that the previous
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
At half.com : http://www.half.com/prod uct s/books/detail.cfm?item=211126
-- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
"His journey is sort of a coming of age, yet he really is of age in another society -- a society whose values are often polar opposites "
:(
I'm not trying to be funny, but this reminds me of moving to the US. When I moved there from Britain I was suddenly back at square one in life... in fact it was worse than that. I'd been used to a certain standard of living, and suddenly I couldn't get that anymore.
America is obsessed with credit ratings. When it comes to credit ratings, you're guilty until proven innocent. Maybe it's changing in Britain now, but I felt that it was the opposite... they gave you small amounts of trust to see how you handled it. If you screwed up, then you would be black-listed and be treated as I was when I first arrived in the US. It's very disturbing (and upsetting) when suddenly you can't get an apartment (one place wanted 6 mos in advance), or a credit card, or a telephone without paying a huge deposit, etc. I was used to living in a society where I could get all of these things in the blink of an eye. Damnit!: when I finally got a US credit card, the limit was lower than my first credit card when I was 18, a student, no income, and no intention of working! Now I was a software engineer with a very good income, but that didn't seem to count
Iron Maiden borrowed the "Stanger In A Strange Land" name for a song called "Stranger in a Strange Land" (Doh!)
/.'s post Maiden sung about Heinleins book..."Stranger In A Strange Land" is about an expedition that got lost in the North Pole. Their bodies were found almost perfectly preserved in the snow. Adrian met one of the survivors and this inspired Maiden to write the song.
The title is borrowed from the famous Robert Heinlein book but the song is not related to the book in any other way.
In case any
Oh and U2 Sung Stranger in a Strange Land too, but that again was NOT about Heinleins book
"I grok Spock!"
But this is not his best work. Not by a long shot. It lacks his usual character development and humor.
Having said that though... this book was a major milestone at the time. I've read a lot of social commentary that attributes the beginning of the Haight-Ashbury hippy movement to this book. Which when you think about it you can see the similarities.
The funny part is... Heinlein stated in his memoirs that he didn't understand why. He thought they were missing the whole point. It's my understanding that he wrote the book to debunk the whole concept of religion. Not to promote Free Love.
He related a story in his memoirs that every so often while he and Virginia were living on their ranch in Colorado a 'hippy' would drop by the house and want to discuss the book. He'd be polite, answer their questions the best he could, then merrily send them on their way just as fast as he could get them out of the house.
Bob was not a hippy. Bob Heinlein if you read his non-fiction works was a Commie-Hating Gun-Toting Quasi-Intellectual Paranoid Nut(tm). At the same time that he was promoting his views on sex he was also spouting off about the evils of Communism, how the survivalists were the only sane people on the planet, how government sucked, etc.
No this was not his best work. But it was accessible to the run-of-the-mill non-sci-fi reader. That's why it succeeded.
~~~
Describing Stranger in a Strange Land as "clearly his crown jewel" is a bit much. Perhaps it is his best work, but there are other strong contenders. Personally I'd put either Starship Trooper or The Moon is a Harsh Mistress ahead of it.
Heinlein always struck me as one of the most reasonable authors when it came to alternate lifestyles. Sure homophobia was expressed in this book, but it was by Ben Caxton, polar opposite to the protagonist. Jubal told him to think about his reaction, and after doing so, Caxton relents.
For other non-homophobic novels, look at the way lesbianism is portrayed in Friday. Just my two cents. I enjoy Heilein as a light read. He has an amusing narrative style, and occasionally his ideas make me say hmmm....
It may look like I'm doing nothing, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away.
--Scott Adams
Animal Farm is actually a very critical, very harsh satire of communism , specially Soviet Union under Stalin. The book was written just after Orwell broke away from the Communist Party (after he realized the real political situation of Soviet Union under Stalin).
If you get familiar the rising of communist ideology since Marx, you can identify one to one relationships between book characters and historical characters. Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, the whole gangy is there.
Heinlein got the title from James Joyce; he did not make it up.
Heinlein got most of his pithy "Lazarus Long" quotes from either Mark Twain or Ambrose Bierce, both of whom are worth reading on their own.
But I still like Heinlein, possibly because I discovered his work when I was nine years old and he was at the peak of his writing form.
A lot of his work was done for "young adults" so he had to limit his vocabulary and keep his characters simple -- aside from the fact that, in those days, science fiction was a literature of ideas, not of character development. The "new wave" SF writers who started employing mainstream literary techniques didn't come along heavily until the late 1960s.
Heinlein was raised before WWII and graduated from the Naval Academy. By the standards of his times he was a feminist, a liberal, and a dreamer -- and by today's standards a hyperpatriot, a warmonger, and possibly an extreme libertarian and a gun nut.
But don't sell Henlein short. He was what he was, good and bad, and most modern science fiction owes a lot to his work.
(I'm talking about written science fiction; by my standards, most film sci-fi is strictly 1930s.)
- Robin
'What is human' is a very common theme in literature and science fiction. The fundamental problem in exploring this theme is the lack of contrast: at the base, all human cultures are fundamentally the same. As Noam Chomskey once wrote, all human languages would seem like the same to a Martian. The similarities in our culture/belief point to the features that make up humanity, but the lack of contrast prevent us from getting at the essence. All too often, we end up comparing outselves to animals ... and then concluding that the essence of humanity is the ability to think and reason or the presence of a 'soul'.
Consequentially, writers have used a few different 'devices' to imagine themselves a contrast. One of the earliest involves using time (Rip Van Winkle, Time Machine, Buck Rogers). By looking at how mankind changes (or rather, fails to change) over a large period of time, we can filter out some of the more superficial features of mankind and get at the essence. Here the contrast is between man now and man in the future. But obviously this does not address the fundamental lack of contrast: we are still comparing humans to humans.
The second device often used is the introduction of non-human species living together with humans. Much of the traditional Tolken-style fantasy literature falls into this category. Humanity is contrasted with elves, dwarves, and other non-human races (for sci-fi, replace them with your favorite alien beings). A good writer can imagine an altogether different species but most writers end up disguising different human traits within each race. This of course, in of itself, is not bad. It is a great way to explore different aspect of humanity. But it provides a weak contrast. All too often (especially in hack fantasy) the meaning of humanity ends up being the hackneyed idea of how mankind, faced with a short finite life, strives for greatness (the usual human vs. elf line). You know, the candle that burns the brightest urns the shortest. But I find it troubling that what defines human life lies with its mortality - this is sort of the religious angle to defining humanity.
Heinlein, in Stranger in a Strange Land, uses a modified version of the second device. He doesn't rely on a direct comparison between the human and non-human species (Martian) but rather through an intermediary. Think of it as the 'Tarzan' device: let human children grow up in a non-human environment. (I guess of Lord of the Flies also uses a similar device as well). Although I'm not a big fan of the book (my enthusiasm for ithe book wanes with every passing year), I must admit that Heinlein does a notable job contrasting mankind with a truly alien species. The fact that we think we know but truly do not know the meaning of 'grok' highlights this stark difference between our race and the Martians (a concept that is fundamental to their race, but does not have a true equivalent in ours).
Heinlein is definitely dated. So are most of the great sci-fi stories out of the 50s-70s. If you read sci-fi for the technology and for a glimpse of the future, then I suggest sticking with the new brand of hardcore sci-fi writers. However, if you are looking for an exploration of major concepts in unusual settings, I think Heinlein is not a bad choice. But in the end, remember that it's entertainment. Not gospel. Heinlein's works ends up being a little too preachy for my taste.
http://www.polychromatic.com/fiction.html
--j
I'm a nature photographer.
Urban Legend or not, it still is an interesting idea..
Your Working Boy,
This is a wonderful book about completely unworkable bullshit utopian ideas.
But doesn't that describe *ALL* great utopian books?
One can love this book without following it's ideas, just like one can love Star Trek: The Next Generation without believing we should quit "interfering" in Ethiopian cultural development by giving them food.
-
There's some evidence that Stranger was Heinlein's attempt to re-interpret Alastair Crowley's philosophy/mythology in a sci-fi context. I don't know if I buy it, as it sounds like conspiracy theory nonsense, but its fun to think about. Here is an interesting if not particularly well-written article about it. http://www.wegrokit.com/thelema.htm I like how the author compares 'Thou Art God' to Thelema: Do what thou wilt is the whole of law. Love is the Law, Love under Will. Every Man and Woman is a Star. In other words, there is no moral authority other than our own divine will. Heinlein was almost definitely aware of Crowley's work, as he was good friends with L Ron Hubbard who was involved in the California branch of Crowley's OTO.
To the author -- if you ever review Time Enough For Love, PLEASE do not say ANYTHING about the last section (Da Capo onwards). Thanks :) For the sake of all those poor souls who have not read SIASL and/or TEFL and want the maximum enjoyment.
This is one of those "here, read this" books. Not something you sell based on its content.
As an aside.. free email with SIASL domain (yes that's my address), and here is a movie-review site with exactly the style of reviews that is perfect in information release: JB's -- don't know how many films I've gone to see based on those reviews, and there's only been one ever that I disagree with. :)
Funny that the three idologies you mention have the same point of failure: excessiveness. Fascism goes too far in emphasizing the importance of the Nation over an individual. In a similar fashion, communism buries individualism under the concept of common property. Finally, libertarians often seem to forget that the individual freedom can only come with the acceptance of the responsibility for the well-being of the others.
thank god, and go michael. it's about time someone stood up for the little people from you abusive, whiny little baby trolls!
*cough*
Leading the partnership for a Slashdot-Free Slashdot, Son of Dog
Somehow I never ran into any fascist
male writer who did a dynamic female
character whose favorite line is,
"the only good cop is a dead cop" ~"Friday"
I really don't consider a story about
the Veteran's Administration running the U S
as Fascist Glorification. Can't a man believe
"Ask not what your country..." w/o
being labeled a fascist.
{In the movie the recroutment sgt. says
to the kid: " The Army made the man who sits before you... when the kid goes away you
see he has no legs", This really doesn't
strike me as "The Triumph of Will"]
[X]
You ain't getting bald,blind
fat, feeble , & incapable of
doing things after work,your
being antigued by a MICROWAVE LASER
////////////////////////////////////
humor for the clinically insane
great comedy company.
My father always said the bet thing was true; he was a major sf fan in the 40s and 50s, the kind who went to meetings, and he too always said that a religion was the best possible way to make a lot of money quickly -- and tax free.
Hank Frazier, one of my father's best friends, actually started a joke/knockoff of Dianetics called "General Psionics" and ran it -- and made money from it -- for several years.
Much of the Fosterite stuff in "Stranger" was based on Los Angeles preacher Aimee Semple McPherson's "Temple of Love."
Another Heinlein story, "If This Goes On," talks of a future US run by a religious dictatorship. It is similar in ways to Sinclair Lewis's "It Can't Happen Here."
Religion was a popular dystopian theme in late 40s and early 50s science fiction.
Later there was Walter Miller's "A Canticle for Leibowitz," which talked about a post-nuclear war US in which guarding a nuclear facility becomes a religious ritual, not science.
- Robin
I think I'm gonna head down to the bookstore as soon as i'm finished writing this. From the review, this book seems to have a lot of the things that drew me to Bradbury's The Martian Chronicles, written in the 50's - dated sci-fi books give a great outlook on what the future could've become, with a few small changes over such a short time.
Walter H. Trent "Muad'Dib"
Padishah Emperor of the Known Universe, IMHO
While Starship Troopers was set on a Fascist Earth, one must also note that it was written from the point of view of one of its subjects.
This society is agressive, and dominating, and throughout the book is losing the war, a war that the government sought.
Heinlein portrays this society from the viewpoint of one of its elite, who quite naturally assumes that it is the best of all possible societies. A soldier writing a piece for military propaganda might well be expected to take a lauditory attitude towards his government.
Read Starshp Troopers with a little care, it might do for you what it once did for me. (Hint; I didn't enlist for Vietnam).
It is written to emulate a fascist paen, no question, but the effect is quite opposite.
You want another Heinlein story with much the same effect? Read The Puppet Masters. I wish that J. Edgar Hoover or William Casey had.
The one place Heinlein did not want suspension of disbelief for readers is in the socio/political aspects of his work. He demanded skepticism of his readers.
Ed Craig "Who cares what you think?" George W. Bush, 4th of July 2001
The problem with Heinlen is it all starts sounding like the same plot. Super-Educated, Busty Redheaded ladies have passionate sex with moderately well educated but fierce warror male types. Any female in a Heinlein book is willing, and eager to please.
Oh yeah, then there's the fluff about philosophy and math and religion and other stuff he pads the sex scenes out with. I've read a lot of his work, and his kids books are about all I could recommend. Job was pointless, Stranger (both versions read) nothing changed in. So everyone in Jubal's household marries each other and they have a group marrage. Yay. Time Enough for love is Heinlein's wet drea... I mean Lazarus Long's biography.
You think this one is bad? Try reading his incestfest called Time Enough For Love.
-----------------------------
1,2,3,4 Moderation has to Go!
You see, he suffers from the same problems that so many other authors of his time did. They were all very nuts, and right-wing nuts at that. Almost to a man they supported Vietnam, guns, and other very un-HUMAN things (since that seems to be the theme of lots of these posts, the humanity of science-fiction).
Science fiction, and much fantasy, hinges on the notion that the future is a utopia because we overcame war and famine and all that. Of course, it was replaced by a society dependent on machines, and with a highly centralized government. I'm sure that most of us would love to be on a starship, based on Star Trek, but Kirk's bravado was, after all, the exception and not the norm. All other Captains were good little soldiers.
Sorry to rant here, but after reading Michael Moorcock's brilliant essay, Starship Stormtroopers, I just can't look at most sci-fi/fantasy in the same way. Be warned that while I encourage all of you to read this article, Moorcock spares no one, going after not just Heinlein, but also Asimov and Tolkein.
that was my two cents, and you owe me change....
sig not found
This book, while not the best of his books, and not the best of *any* book, is a book that I think is important to read for any fan of the genre.
SiaSL may be overly fanciful, and oftimes offensive or strange or whatever, but it does make you think about what you believe, and often why you believe it. I've read it a couple of times, and I didn't like it either time. But like most Heinlein books, it has this odd pull to me where I don't think I've understood it enough.
For actual fun reading, though, read Friday. It's just an amusing story, and it has a touching plot. It's not deep, it's an adventure, and Friday happens to learn some stuff along the way. 'The Cat who Walked Through Walls' was similar. An amusing adventure through time and space, and the last novel that he wrote that didn't involve people having sex *all the time*.
I read Stranger (and almost all of the rest of Heinlein's work) back in the 80's and was a big fan of science fiction in general. I was a typical nerd: SF, RPGs, and junk food were my drugs of choice.
One summer, while staying in Campbell River, British Columbia, I ended up playing Dungeons and Dragons [hope the movie doesn't suck] with Jane Fonda's son. I ended up going grocery shopping with Jane and my mom, and had a conversation about Heinlein with her at a BBQ dinner. She ended up signing my Dungeon Master's Guide on the flyleaf, with an almost illegible paragraph imploring me to "grok" the magic of life.
This, coming from Barbarella: it was a really cool experience. I still have that DMG, too.
---
The only thing I have to say about Stranger is this: it made a big impression on me, with its indictment of materialism and its innovative twist on "Men from Mars".
I thought that Stranger in a Strange Land was the worst Sci-fi book ever written, until I read Battlefield Earth, by L. Ron Hubbard, which is by far the worst book ever written.
I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords
For afficionados of science fiction, psychology, and mysticism, -- and especially for those who found Stranger sappy and idealistic -- I recommend an exercise:
Compare Stranger to Dune.
One is full of love, compassion, and freedom, while the other is about hardness, amorality, and discipline. The contrast between water-sharing and water murder is particularly strong. However, at bottom I think they're the same story: a story of what humanity can be when our true will is placed above everything else. Paul and Mike are both superhuman badaasses, but one of their most salient -- and emulatable -- qualities is that they don't get distracted. I think this juxtaposition hardens our view of Mike, and makes the strength beneeath his soft lovieness more evident. That, in turn, makes the story a good deal harder to dismiss as naively utopian.
-----
Go ahead, blame me... I voted for Nader!
-----
Go ahead, blame me... I voted for Nader!
I ran across it again on my book shelves a few years ago and decided to reread it. That was a mistake. Tom Wolfe is correct - you can't go home again. Thirty years of growing up was just too much, and the magic was gone.
If you're young and idealistic this book can make you soar and if you're not...well you'll hate it.
If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much space.
I think that if you have a mind of your own, and don't blindly buy into the porno & guns aspect of Heinlein's stories (and even as a teen, I felt the drag of 'wading through' some of his preachy Libertarianism), then you don't need to avoid reading them.
Besides, he is a perfect example of how the role of the individual is seen by Libertarians, and how the role of the citizen is defined in his utopian ideology. What I'm saying is: even if you are an Anarchist, he still provides a good story and a foil on which to test your beliefs. If you only read books that agree with your POV, you're pretty timid.
WHere's the 'love' in that? Love's for anybody who doesn't annoy the all-powerful leader? I don't have any references handy, but I've got the definite impression that this book was one of Manson's props. (I won't say influences, because he was pretty much pre-twisted by the time he got to the Haight, in '67)
That's what Manson was telling his 'family', though- we're smarter than those squares, and we can keep our groovy free-loving personality cult, but a few wrong-thinking losers will have to die first.
I'm not trying to blame this book for Manson- it's just a book, it never killed anyone- I'm just saying, it surprises me that nobody comments on the wish-them-bad-mens-into-another-dimension plot device, 'cos I feel like it totally undercuts the whole peace-love-grooviness vibe everybody talks about.
-- 'intellectual property' is oxymoronic
Chris Hind is right: if you did not "experience" the sixties and the seventies, Heinlein's work can be hard to stomach. I also agree that other authors of that time are simply better writers than Heinlein. Philip K. Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep deals with the issue of religion allegorically (Mercer, empathy boxes, etc.) and manages to convey a well-formed view of the role of religion in our lives without needing to formulate an alternative for illustrative purposes. PKD's perspective is almost the opposite of Heinlein's: DADoES does insinuate that organized religion may be a fraud (the "God is dead and an actor plays his part" line -- literally) but it also argues credibly in favor of the value of mythology and shared experience.
Wake up, man! They've shot down two of our landers, and you are still in denial about their very existence!
In Murphy We Turst
I believe Billy Joel's song "We Didn't Start the Fire" mentions Stranger in a Strange Land (definately referring to the book).
Now this book was crap. Some rite of passage book about this adolescent girl with strange sexual undertones. To think this guy was ever compared with Frank Herbert!
Juln
THE MAN WROTE IN THE FIFTIES AND SIXTIES, PEOPLE!
Were you perhaps expecting Gloria Steinem?
For a less male-supremacist view of what his writings may have looked like if written in this modern day, try his protege, David Gerrold. His War vs. the Chtorr series kicks fucking ass. It also deals with VERY strong women and some homosexual issues as well.
Blusher
Judge: Ma'am, are you showing contempt for this court? Mae West: Ah was doin' mah best to hide it, your honor.
Heinlein said, in an essay, that Starship Troopers was accused of "glorifying" the military; he said it was more intended to praise the footsoldier, the guy who has to do the fighting, rather than the military as a whole. You can make a case that in ST, the most admirable characters are the lowest in rank.
ST is about responsability. It isn't any kind of satire.
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Later there was Walter Miller's "A Canticle for Leibowitz," which talked about a post-nuclear war US in which guarding a nuclear facility becomes a religious ritual, not science.
Er, what? "A Canticle for Leibowitz" is one of my favorite books, and a hidden classic of Sci Fi, IMHO, and it does not have any incident of a religious group guarding a nucler facility.
The book takes place in 3 parts. All the parts involve a Monestry, somewhere in the southwest, who were involved with the storage of knowlege after a nuclear holocaust. Although the holocaust does not take place during the events of the book, one is told that the population rose up against the idea of knowledge, and tried to destroy all sources of knowlege. The Order of Leibowitz was dedicated to preserving this knowledge, by memorizing books and by smuggling them. The first part of the book takes place around 600? years after the holocaust, and involves the order undercoving some evidence about the life of Leibowitz, which would presumably help the attempt fot Leibowitz's sainthood.
The second part involves the state of Texarkana expanding into an empire, and the power struggle between it and New Rome. This part of the book has one of my favorite lines, after the chief Hogan Os finds out that he has been betrayed, he vents his rage in the directions of his enemies, and also heavenwards, the latter accomplished by "burning a shaman a day." (Sorry, don't have the book atm, loaned it to a friend, otherwise I could give the exact quote.) In this section humanity is regaining the skills that it once had, there are primitive firearms, and electricity has been discovered again. It also has one of the most colorful characters in the book, a man named Poet.
The final third of the book has the Texarkana Empire stretched out so it controls most of North America. The empire is at a state of hostilities with another nation, and there is the threat of nuclear destruction once again.
All in all, its a great book.
Obviously there are far too many people reading the spoon-fed, drivel equivalent to a Danielle Steele version of science fiction to appreciate a true artist. Not that I love each and every single book Heinlein wrote by any stretch, but for someone to simply dismiss it with a "heinlein sux" is unfortunate, at best...
Heinlein did a lot of his writing *50+* years ago. Not only did he have tremendous imagination, but think of the attitudes towards different cultures and sexuality and the like at that point in time. No pun intended, but his writing was many years ahead of its time.
Give credit where credit is due. Heinlein is one of the founding fathers of science fiction and the genre would *not* be the same without him, regardless of whether or not you like his work.
"I can be self-referential if I want to," said Tom, swiftly.
News is only part of the objective.
Stuff that matters is the other half of the sentence, and judging by the 345235235 comments on this issue I suppose it matters to *someone*.
--Perianwyr Stormcrow
What we call folk wisdom is often no more than a kind of expedient stupidity.-Edward Abbey
Actually, it was not really a "book"; originally, it was a combination of two short stories published as a series in a pulp sci-fi magazine in the 40's. But it was excellent.
Orphans of the Sky is rather short (128 pages in my paperback here), but an excellent read which I highly recommend. My copy was published in 1965, and I can not find an ISBN on it, but after a short search I found hardcovers with ISBN 0399106138 at Half.com and barnesandnoble.com. Check out www.addall.com for good book price comparisons.
--Garthnak
Liberty in Our Lifetime - http://www.freeme.org/
When I read this book, I found it a chore to finish. Its not so much that the ideas aren't interesting, if a bit simplistic and dated, but more that he has a habit of beating the reader over the head with his philosophy. The book seems to fall peril to the same problem as a lot iof other utopian/dystopian books, like something by Orwell or Le Guin - the philosophy is more important than the plot and characters, or the realism, or much of anything at else. And this book is a lot longer than many such novels. Heinlein said he couldn't write this as a short story. I think he should have tried.
My apologies for the rambling nature of this post
"It's because they're stupid. That's why everybody does everything."- Homer Jay Simpson
I've personally experienced first hand, small groups with similar ideals, living free of many of the confines traditional society takes for granted. It's very difficult to see ones own 'reality tunnel' when looking through it, but the opportunity to step outside it, and see even a glimpse of the vast expanses outside of it can give you the context to open yourself to worlds you never knew existed. This book provides just such a context. Unfortunately, ideas outside our own self-inflicted realities can seem so fantastic that we disbelieve. For anyone who really just can't grok this vision any other way, I personally recommend about .2 gram of MDMA (ecstacy), a warm room with tastefully sofetted, indirect lighting, and soothing music, in the company of one or some of the people you know and love best. You can and will experience at least a little bit of what it is to 'grok in fullness,' as you become intimately aware of the interconnectivity that pervades us all. (a word of caution: this is a very powerful tool for experiencing possibility. it is very important that you learn from the experience, and come away from it with the ability to bring some of that possibility to your every day life. the drug shows us what's possible, it is not the only way to live those possibilities.)
For those of your who still don't grok, it is sad, but you will go the way of the dodo. Just as Jubal predicted, those of us who can actually experience in fullness and live in harmony with the universe around us are the fittest, and will survive.
So flame away, I am reborn as the phoenix in your fire!
I would describe the regime in Starship Troopers as a martial one. I don't think facism applies since that is generally considered the result of an alliance between corrupt, failed socialist regimes forming an alliance with corporate powers in order to manipulate and control a gullble and traumatized public, usually appealing to populist and nationalist senitiments.
I think it's a mistake to consider Heinlein's portral as serious. It's an unusually optimistic, lighthearted thought experiment in what a martial regime might be like _if_ accompanied by a strong ethic of personal responsibility. Of course that's a pretty big 'if'.
As far as I'm concerned, the only similarity between Anarchists and Libertarians is that they both talk about the rights of the individual. The only difference being, of course, that they are looking at it from opposite sides.
The concept of a political party is alien to the Anarchist movement. The Libertarians tell you that only corporate (ie: party) dialogue counts, supporting the legitimacy of the group over the individual because "we all know" people speaking for themselves don't really count: you have to represent the interests of many people before you will be heard.
To an Anarchist, this sounds pretty wierd. Anarchists talk to human beings, not spokesmen, not corporations, not governments. How can you speak to an abstract entity? (reference: Clue Train Manifesto) An anarchist does not--ever--become the "role" of a corporate representative, and isn't there to empower special interests whether they are related to groups, or kings, or gods. An anarchist stands for himself, and sacrifices as necessary for the common good. To support one part of the population against another is to divide the common good... to play the game of the indivisible middle.
The only way to move towards a consious government is to stop fooling ourselves that any group--no matter what their political philosophy--have a disinterested view of creating an outcome that benefits everyone. Groups act in their own interest, so politics is the process of winning power.
It's the prisoner's dilemma, and you aren't allowed to care about anyone but yourself. Who sells out first gets the most, and everyone else can go screw themselves, because the individual (in the Libertarian conception) has no role in creating the common good. That's fine if you are a member of the management and professional elite, but it means that everyone else loses.
I think Anarchy is about supporting the legitimacy of the individual's right to question, doubt, and be critical. It's about challening the voice of authority and forever questioning what is "right".
It isn't about "manufacturing consent" or dealing away personal power in order to win something in the short term. It's about waking up and involving people in their own government. It's about being human.
I would hardly call a book Irrelevant that inspired the CAW...They are one of the more stable Pagan groups out there. And it is a great deal more healthy than the other SF derived religion, Scientonology! When was that last time CAW went after a web site to shut them down for critizing them, or publishing their "secret" papers?
If I wasn't involved with Ár nDraíocht Féin: A Druid Fellowship, I would have joined the Church of All Worlds. Both groups demand a level of intellectuall curiosity that leaves most other churchs behind. And that appeals to me.
Kallisti!
ttyl
Farrell J. McGovern
CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
The second review is closer to the fact of this book. 'Stranger in a Strange Land' is always held up as an example of Heinlein's work, and I must wonder why. As Byron is remembered for his bad poetry, so Heinlein is remembered for his worst book. I should know: I own almost everything he wrote. The nitpicker in my demands that I point out that Jubal Harshaw is not Lazarus Long: he is one of the protagonists from 'The Cat That Walks Through Walls' (a mediocre book), and shows up again in the late fiction such as 'To Sail Beyond the Sunset' and 'The Number of the Beast'. Heinlein's best book is 'The Past Through Tomorrow' - his collected future history stories. These are delightful, and though his technical concepts are heavily simplified. Let us maintain our perspective: Heinlein was one of the better authors of the golden age of science fiction. He was not on the level of Stanley G. Weinbaum, and certainly was not among the greats (for a philosophical book, try Ford Madox Ford's 'Parade's End' - if you can find it). When you are tired and want something that you can read easily in a few hours, turn to Heinlein or someone on his level. When seriously reading, read the really fine authors: Homer, Ovid, Dante, Baudelaire, Rimbaud, Verlaine, Ford, Stevenson, Poe...the list goes on and on, and will easily fill several lifetimes.
This book starts out great, with the main charecter darn nearly being perfect, logical, non-emotional, and very intelligent.
Then a bunch of people get the idea that he needs to get laid.
Great, human raised on another planet, another culture, possabile able to tell us the secrets of the universe, and all Heinlein can think about is getting him laid.
Its been said before, and I'll say it again, Heinlein was a dirty old man, all throughout his life.
Sheesh, pathetic, really pathetic, I started to like Mike, but then Heinlein ruined him! He turned from the nice introspective logial type to an exoverted horny a-hole. Of course, in the standard Heinlein manner, Heilien then goes about and spends around half the book justifying orgies! He actualy tries to justify the sexual cult that he has Mike create! Brotherhood and friendship my arse, if Mike wanted to really help out society he would go down to the library and start reading up on earthly technology, and seeing how he could improve it with his unique perspective. I can just begin to imagin the mathmatical advances he could have made, if it wasn't for Heilien writting him so attrocicly.
Ugh, a dispicible book that starts out good, and takes a 180 turn half-way through.
Its a shame when a good auther goes bad.
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
I have to agree that Starship Troopers permanently belongs in the category of pulp, but Have Spacesuit, Will Travel is an excellent read about the failings of conventional education techniques in the gifted. It seems to be a call for ungraded mentor-style schooling more like the Sarah Lawrence/New College-USF model.
Also, I couldn't understand where Scrymarch drew his conclusions from, so I'll have to assume he doesn't get any.
I am both a cynic and an optimist; I am alternately conservative and liberal; I am compassionate and cruel; and I am human.
The reason why Stranger made me bitter is in my youth I did not realize the Mike was an archetype for the potential human development. A small group of us who all read the book and theoretically agreed on the tenets (at my urging) formed a water brother group. It was truly a beautiful thing.
For about three months.
When two of the water brothers started dating exclusively, we all smiled tolerantly and were happy for their happiness.
When the relationship ended and they stopped talking the whole fragile chain of brotherhood evaporated as people choose sides and blame was cast.
We weren't mature enough, or evolved enough, or gullible enough or whatever term you wish to choose; but the simple fact that human nature is contrary to concept of water brothers. Which I think what Heinlein was trying to say.
We have the potential... but only if we change.
Both the Dune series and Stranger in Strange Land offer that glimpse into what humans may become, the archetype we can achieve, but mostly only in our dreams.
And that is why I think it is great book. Not because of a free love philosophy, or wild orgies, or a poking fun at established religion. The gift of untapped human potential.
*A)bort, R)etry, I)nfluence with large hammer.*
Ye do not Grok. I'm not even going to bother with Slashdot anymore. Go to Arstechnica if you want an intelligent discussion of this book. It's obvious that one won't get one out of Slashdot. http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?q=Y& a=tpc&s=50009562&f=34709834& amp;m=479099823
Here's an interesting review of the book, unlike those above.
http://search3.nytimes.com/search/daily/bin/fastwe b?getdoc+book-rev+bookrev-arch+12806+1+w AAA+stranger%7Ein%7Es%7Ea%7Estrange%
While Stranger is a challenge to your beliefs, it is NOT a sermon. Don't make the mistake of thinking that just because the man wrote a novel, that it's the code he lived by. Few of the views in the book were consistent with those in his other books, and what was there was included because it was diametrically opposed to the current mores of the time. Remember, this book was written about 40 years ago, when questioning religion and suggesting free love (not to mention cannibalism) was obscene or even unthinkable for some. Taken out of the context of its time, the shock-value is diminished.
The previous posters have said a lot of overly harsh things about Heinlein...that he was sexist, a gun-toting paranoid, fascist, etc. Again, remember that he was born close to a century ago (before my grandfather!), and that 50 years from now you will be called equally unflattering words for your outdated views, because times change faster then people do.
Quite a few people seemed to have even more problems with Starship Troopers then they did with Stranger In A Strange Land, many because of perceived 'fascism.' This is comical. First, isn't the slashdot method of scoring posts just as fascist as requiring government service to get a vote? Both are systems that further their own ideas. No doubt that comment earns me a 1 ;) Have a different view from the establishment, and you are moderated down. Second: Heinlein wasn't pushing the government in Starship Troopers, OR the war (as some posters suggested.) The war was portrayed as something that earth had no choice about...the insectile enemy was almost a force of nature, which could not be bargained with. It was fight back or die. Also, the focus of the book was not the government itself, but rather the effect it had on Rico. Starship Troopers didn't try to paint totalitarian control as being ideal or perfect...the effects the government had on normal citizens lives was never explored. What was explored was: War, duty, and patriotism from the point of view of an infantry grunt. Remember that Heinlein only left the navy because he was forced to after being injured. For him, this was probably a yearning for better days (for him) when he felt he was part of a team, and a greater good. Third, every poster seems to have made the assumption that fascism is bad. Fascism is not inherently bad, neither is monarchism, capitalism, or many other isms. With each, the goodness/badness depends on (1) the morality of those in power (2) where you are on the power scale in relation to those in power. The efficiency and distribution of power/wealth differ with each ism, but few of them are more or less moral then the others.
Finally...if you really want something to vilify Heinlein for, forget Stranger In A Strange Land and Starship Troopers. The one thing that sickens me is the recurring theme of incest or relationships with little girls. In A Door Into Summer and Twin Star, the main character is able to marry a girl that is almost a daughter to him (thanks to loopholes in time in both books.) In The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress (an otherwise excellent book) the main characters bring a little girl into their group marriage. And there are other examples...I would be scared to let that man raise a daughter.
If I remember correctly:
* Glorification of military service, esp. from an officer's point of view. Nothing about the terror of warfare, like being in a military barrage so heavy that you swear the buttons on your shirt are making you the highest poiont of land around. Or watching poison gas roll towards you, & cursing in fright because your gas mask is not where you swore it was a second ago.
(Sorry. I was channeling Wilfred Owens there.)
* The enemy was uniformly one-dimensional. The section concerning the raid on the ``Skinnies" read harrowingly like an act of ethnic cleansing.
* The ``We are all brothers in arms" portrait of military srvice. Yeah, right. Life in the military is a daily routine of keeping one's head down, mouth shut, & watching your back & those of a few, chosen others. And when an outsider slips, you take the opportunity to slip in a little payback.
About the same time I read _Starship Troopers_, I read Haldeman's _Forever_War_. A picture of space warfare from a slightly different perspective -- & written by someone who wanted to point out the flaws in Heinlein's book. The tale of a band of intelligent people of both sexes (with the obligatory Heinleinian orgy) drafted into frontline combat where they have the honor of dying under alien skies following the orders of PHBs.
Read Haldeman's book, then decide if ST is worth defending. While not all leaders are as manipulative & venal as those in FW, very few are perceptive as those mentioned in ST.
Geoff
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
I'm not talking about all of you. Only the loudest ones who clearly didn't want to understand. The ones who cower from fear and fight back at such words as 'communism', 'fascism', 'utopia' and 'love'. Irrational fear or lust causes people to shout and block their minds. Ironically, too often in both camps!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;-)
.. Allowing eachother freedom and space to grow.
Mike DID understand humanity. He understood us, and wept for us in his sleep. Except that he couldn't really weep. Can't you see that? That is what 'grok' can mean. "Get under your skin", not just analyse, prejudice, tolerate or gloat over! Grok in its highest meaning resemble more to love in full understanding, respect and openness to one another. No bondage, strings attached
And WHAT is wrong with sex? Why do we fear so much, we have to own our mates? It causes hurt and suffering because no such thing can really be done. An agreement is fine, but too often we find ourselves devastated over broken promises. Our social rites and expectations are too rigid. Instead of being natural, we are greedy, envious, self-pitiful, self-righteous and right out stupid. Our only defence here is that we are blind and sleeping - no, make that unconscious!
Not only that, the martian society was in no way an ideal or goal for Mike or his companions. He developed a hybrid culture mixed between humans and martian! He also did recognize that the assaults of the martian "defence", was not necessarily the "right thing" to do!
I'm not saying everyone should agree with how Mike setup things in this book, or viewed the world. Hell, everyone agreeing would make us pretty simple minded. Which we are not. However, there's an ocean between even simple tolerance and the display we have here today.
It's a clever book. Not necessarily because of its writing, characters or even plot. It's clever because it dares challenge people. That is why you see so many bad reviews on this site.
Go read it, you might decide to alter your perspective of this world for a little while. This stuff is definately not dated yet!
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
It seems that Moorcock is one of these over-politicized characters who imposes his Marxist grid on everything. However the essay has some interesting ideas.
From the New England Science Fiction Association (NESFA) hymnal, to the tune of "My Bonnie Lies Over the Ocean"
My Nest is a hotbed of Martians
And Michael just lies there and grins
Enwombed with his brothers and sisters
Oh, Foster, forgive us our sins!
Foster, Foster, oh Foster forgive us our sins,
our sins!
"Ain't no right way to do a wrong thing."
Critics of Stranger called him a dangerous liberal, obsessed with free love and radical ideas. Ironically, critics of Starship Troopers called him fascist and ultra-conservative. To understand Heinlein, you need to read both. These underly most modern science fiction. They also exceed most other science fiction-- more than anyone else, Heinlein was the sci fi author who merged human issues, sexuality, and hard core sci fi/sci fantasy into a compelling mix. He's not afraid of anything and puts out his own self consistent morality as a potential model-- or debate piece-- for his readers.
Stranger is too touchy-feely for you? Think about Starship Troopers and ponder what this guy was trying to get across while writing them at the same time. He has strong ideas about love vs. sex, responsibility, citizenship, religion, and how people treat each other. Despite this high philosophy, the guy himself was shameless about making a quick buck and never failed to spin a good story.
Heinlein is the Hemingway of sci fi (apologies to Hemingway). Anyone who writes off Stranger in a Strange Land as a hard-core writer gone soft and annoying is missing a lot. Go back and read the book again (try the excellent, unedited 'Author's Cut' version released a few years ago). There's a reason this is a staple of science fiction.
-m
-m
Although I agree that this is a great novel, why are we bringing up an ages old novel here on slashdot?
"Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
Scrymarch appears to not understand the decade which he apparently despises.
I would suspect he either had bad experiences during those years or, more likely, didn't live through them as a mature being. (One might add: "... hence, didn't grok them" but that would no doubt irritate him, heh.)
For that reason, I'm very curious about the age of this sixties-hater.
Your sig states: " I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys."
That is such a clever hack! I presume that the inane British law which states that you are not allowed to tell us when you *have* been required to do so, and punishes you unreasonably if you do, does *not* punish you for *cough* "coincidentally" *cough* omitting that line from you sig. Is this correct?
Bravo, sir! I sincerely hope this catches on and request that all emailling anyone in the .uk domain consider adding something similar to
their .sig files. The clueful will catch on.
As for Stranger in a Strange Land, remember that this book came out in 1960 and had been in progress for a long while. Heinlein wasn't influenced by the 1960's--he *predicted* the 1960's. It was really a prety amazing job of prediction--a lot better than predicting personal jetpacks, wrist televisions, and food pills. Of course, when the 1960's came around, all the hippies jumped on the book, but please do try to remember what order it happened in.
There is a copy of Stranger in a Strange Land that was the original manuscript (~250,000 words) compared to the published first edition (~150,000 words). Years after Heinlein died, they got permission to reprint it, and it is available.
I'm finding it a tedious read though at times (the uncut version).
I hope you realize that the next century begins in a little over a month.
However, the book says that the government actually came up with some pretty good ideas for the constitution and actually functioned well (which is not what the professor wanted).
In the book, each of the four main revolutionaries had their own reason for joining, and their own goals. But once the revolution got started, it went it's own way to, and not everyone's goals were entirely met. But that's ok, because a democracy cannot meet everyone's goals, or even one person's goals completely.
It's a loose translation of a Hindu tenet, "tat tvam asi," Thou art That, apparently from the Chandogya Upannishad, VI, 8, 7. The whole thing is part of an extended discourse on the unity of the spirit; it is roughly equivalent to the christian saying "The kingdom of god is within you" but there is much more material in the on-line copy of the Upannishad I found.
And it's considered even more fascist by people who have the read the book and are old enough to be out of high school. Do you remember how humanity was an aggressively imperialist species in that book, really no better than the bugs? And what was the rationale for conquering lesser races? Because we can. The strong have an obligation to dominate the weak, it's really in everyone's best interest, don't you see, since it makes the species stronger.
You know, Heinlein wasn't the first hack writer to come up with that idea. Nietzsche wrote the same thing. He impressed a foolish young Austrian corporal with his ridiculously transparent whack-off fantasies the same way virginal males today fantasize about being characters in Heinlein novels.
Mind you, I have read some excellent short stories by Heinlein. Check out "Universe" sometime. It was written around 1941, at least 20 years before crap like Stranger in a Strange Land and all those other horrible novels. Maybe it was a mid-life crisis he never recovered from.
I wish more people realized this. It frustrates me when I come across people who think that science fiction is only about laser guns and space ships. It's almost impossible to convince them that sci-fi is about "what it means to be human".
For example, the people who created the TV show "Dark Angel" often deny that the show is sci-fi because they think it will turn people off. But after watching one episode, no one would claim it to be anything but sci-fi. I wonder how many of those people would be able to see past the "science" of the show and see the human side of it.
--
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
Wierd, or what?
Paul.
You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different.
You can suspend disbelief long enough to ignore the presense of "Martians" but you don't buy the possibility of people living in polygamous, free-loving group marriages?
Or is it just Heinlein's vision if it you have a problem with?
--
My comments and opinions completely reflect those of anyone and anything I am remotely associated with.
As it turned out, the first time I read SIASL I was at a religious retreat. For those who have a history of religion in their lives, I think SIASL says a lot about faith, beliefs, and other things that religion tries to address. I view "us" as the non-religious type, so much of what he says is lost since it's hard to relate to what he's saying.
The thing that strikes me most about Heinlien is his dialog between characters. Most authors use it to prove that the characters are actually relating to each other. Heinlien uses it to describe the plot and what's going on. I think he relies on the dialog more than some omnipotent view of the world.
Is Heinlen a cooky leftist or a right-wing wacko? From his works we could infer he is a believer in subordination to a strong or weak state, a believer in a promiscous society, a believer in religion or an atheist....
But it doesn't work. Science fiction is often set in a radically different world, in terms of culture, politics, and economics. Good science fiction is often set in a world that does not correspond to an existing one - an anarchist society, a post-capitalist economy, whatever.
Trying to map these grand worlds back onto our society is hard/impossible. The problem is that politics is a circle.
The "left" is sometimes associated with a strong state - socialism. It's also sometimes associated with a weak state - civil liberties. The "right" is sometimes associated with a weak state - lassez-faire economics. But the same end of the political spectrum is occupied by the Religous Right and public morality for all. We really are pretty confused.
The black and white worlds of science fiction often feature a benevolent strong state ("Starship Troopers" maybe - "Star Trek" definitely) so they seem on face to be socialist paradises. Everyone of merit serves the state in some capacity. But are we at the Far Right or the Far Left?
And is the described society good or bad? You can frequently make a case either way. Take the broken, corporatized worlds of William Gibson where the nation-state has atrophied. They're a libertarian's dream and a socialist's nightmare. But to decide if Gibson is a socialist or a libertarian you have to decide whether they're good or bad - not an easy question.
Then we have to decide if the described society is something the author advocates or just a plot device....
define here, and I am NOT american, thank you very much..
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
This is assuming that he actually believed in what he was saying, rather than playing the devil's advocate or portraying a role in society that he utterly loathes.
:)
I can also say as someone who has had three out of five girlfriends that have at some point in their lives been raped, that most - if not all - women who live though this awful experience *blame themselves.* Add to this the kind of attitudes men had towards women (and women had towards women... and are still prevalent today, unfortunately) about how only bad girls do, and out pops something as loathesome as a line like this any time the subject of rape comes up. I think that there's a good chance he was trying to get us to think "But that's just fucked up! What a stupid attitude!" Even cooler if we would get off our asses and _do_ something about it.
Personally, I haven't read the book, but now I'm definitely going to.
---
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
The purpose of SIASL was to question the very foundations of our culture. Heinlein looked at the world, he looked at our judeo-christian taboos of modesty and monogomy, he looked at how we villify sex and use words to describe it like "dirty". He looked at our constant jealousy and fear and unhappiness and he questioned whether we needed to be so sad, and more than that he proposed new ideas, new concepts of family, as well as many other new ideas and concepts. They may not all be correct, or ideal, but he was at least questioning the culture we live in, which most of us don't do nearly enough. Also, I think it should be considered that what Heinlein actually felt, and what he thought he should feel were two different things. He's often said (through his characters) things like "You can take the boy out of the bible belt, but you can't take the bible belt out of the boy." He had some prejudices he grew up with (such as his sexism, and attitudes towards women in general) that he thought were flawed, and try as he did, he couldn't break them in himself, so he created fictional characters to do so, but he always put himself in the book (or at least who he wanted to be, ie, Jubal). Jubal thought Mike's ideas and ideals were beautiful and lovely, but felt it was too late for him, as I feel it is for many people, but just because some people can't accept ideals doesn't mean we should abandon them, but it means we should try harder to not let our prejudices effect us, and instill in our children better set of ideals than we were brought up in.
I have long and hard considered many of the things Heinlein said, mostly in Stranger, and have come to the conclusion that about many things, I agree with him. I think that monogomy is a flawed concept (whoa, will I get flamed for this or what?), and I think his proposal (repeatedly, in lots of books) of a kind of group marriage is a much better ideal that we should strive for. I feel very lucky in that I read this book (and many others that have shaped my ideals including B.F. Skinner and Herbert M. Shelton), and that I have the strength to choose not to accept the ideals of our society, but form my own, which admittedly, bare a resembalance to Heinlein's ideals. I also feel very lucky to have met a girl who feels the same way I do, who was fortunate enough to question our culture at a young enough age to form opinions that are at odds with the accepted. She and I are a family, in Heinlein's sense of the word, and we even use the term brothers (it's as good as any other, ain't it?) and I hope that our family will grow, in something of the way Mike's did. My ideals are not set in stone of course, but constantly evolving, hopefully for the better. I will try to live in this world in the most idealistic way I can, and choose what I think is good, not simply what is accepted. We may fail of course, but we will bloody well try.
Flame on, brothers!
Joshua
Terradot
When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout!
Hmm, the site seems to be offline. Wonder if it'll be back
In the Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, Heilein has the professor argue the best government is the one that governs least. Obviously, no government governs least. Thus no government is best. Heinlein argued that individual rights and the agreements between individuals were ethically more important than anything else in society - except perhaps taking care of children. He never had much use for liberals or authoritarians, so setting them up in a government would pit them against each other and let the rest of us get on with our lives. This theme that government is at best a necessary evil, and that people who WANT to govern are the last ones we should want in that position, recurs in his fiction throughout his lifetime. Many of the future history stories reflect this. Heinlein touches on this quite definitely in Stranger ... where he emphasizes the hazards of the religious right, and of authoritarians from societies where there is no tradition of even minimal respect for individual liberty.
------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.